Literary Fantasy

Fantasy in itself is a subgenre of 'Speculative Fiction' which covers anything that is not conceivably possible in our day and age. This is what groups us together with our sister genre of Science Fiction. When you look at the two they are very similar. The 'Might and Magic' games show us that technology can be perceived as magic when the person using it does not understand its full potential and use.

So, while you have given no specific question in your post, I feel it proper to insist that every work is literature and this just happens to fall (from what understand) as speculative fiction.

"English does not borrow from other languages. It follows them into dark alleyways, beats them with a stick, and searches their pockets for loose grammar."

Most important rules of writing...

-A writer must not shift your point of view
-Check to see

I don't like the idea that "good" fantasy (or any genre) gets to graduate to "literature" because it carries the assumption that genre fiction is "bad" and literary fiction is "good."

________________________________________________
"A bibliophile of little means is likely to suffer often. Books don't slip from his hands but fly past him through the air, high as birds, high as prices." --Pablo Neruda

Unfortunately, genre fiction being considered "bad" or "lower" than literary fiction on a pretend scale happens sort of naturally with some readers and writers. It's important just to write or read as you please, regardless of whether or not it's considered literature.

NaNoWriMo 2007 entry: http://uneasilyslumberingstory.blog.com/

I don't think the question of whether literature is better than genre fiction or not really applies to this thread. "Literary fantasy", as I see it, is merely a description of a branch of fantasy - fantasy that pays a more profound attention to character than other branches of fantasy; fantasy that resembles literary fiction and indulges in rambling, introspection, and an array of metaphors; fantasy that uses fantastical elements more as a way to plumb character than to explore those elements in and of themselves. An example would be Virginia Woolf's novel Orlando. The MC never ages, and changes from male to female midway through the story, but rather than explore the fantastical elements - the reasons for the sex change and Orlando's eternal youth - Woolf uses those elements to explore Orlando's character, as well as take a look at English history.

'03 A princess weaves her long-reaching vengeance against the brother who exiled her. Lost.

'05 A farmboy sets out to find his fortune and is crushed by gods he meant to outwit. Lost.

'06 A madwoman tries to kill her younger self. But a fairy and a

I very much appreciate everyone's concern here and comments. Thank you.

For me, I think Fantasy is a fabulous area!!!!

And, as much literature too.

A good story is a good story.

My interest in posting this thread is because, well for starters, NaNoWriMo invites us to allign our works in categories, which is kind of fun and helpful and kind of a challenge for some of us.

Also, there seems to be some confusion about how one might "categorize" a story -for the sake of submitting it to an agent, if for nothing else.

One impressively experienced writer on NaNaWriMo told me, in November, that, if possible, it was a good idea to define one's story by a genre or within a subgenre of one because that is helpful to those trying to market or catalog or sell the work.

I have read agent blogs that strongly agree AND I have read other agent blogs that feel that mixed genre is a growing trend.

Being, myself, new to the consideration of how my own -or others'- stories fit within a genre, this is really a discussion I that think will continue to prove helpful to my own understanding.

I have been torn in what genre I feel most comfortable declaring my own work in and have spoken to other authors who are equally torn, so I thought I would put out a couple of threads to see where the discussion can take us and open up the question to others.

But in trying to get a better grasp on genre classification, I certainly do not feel one is better than another. I am just trying to understand the subject better.

Again, all comments are appreciated. Thank you!
-RT

My story is more character than plot driven, there's no doubt about that. Considering I changed the setting and overall plot three times before settling on one, but keeping the same central characters and their "inner struggles," lol. Of course I could be prejudiced in that I think my story is the dumbest thing ever written, but I would hardly call it literary. Really I'm writing it for fun. I want it to be fun to write, and my objective is that the reader will have fun reading it as well. When I think of literary I think of high and lofty ideas and experimental writing styles, which I definitely lack. But I also believe in interesting well developed characters with deep inner struggles, so that plays a major part. So I dunno. Maybe it's more literary than I give it credit for :P But I somehow still doubt it.

science fiction can deal with possible events that just haven't happened yet but could tomorrow or could have happened and no one knows about or that can already happened yet in an alternate history.

Literary Fantasy...perhaps it exists. The terms of Literary Fiction are pretty sketchy indeed, so you could classify a Fastasy work as Literary if it has intensive, dynamic character development -and- carries with it a commentary on any aspect of society. Much like an essay, most of the Literary fiction I've come across has an argument put forth, regardless of wheter it is blatant in the work itself.

NaNo 2008, what will you bring?
More WKRC? The Triumphant return of Siegfred's Giant? The Misadventures of Hans and Greta? Or the newly discovered From one Architect to Another?

Well, this is hard to explain. Literature is a depiction of real life in an art form. It's a statement about us. It's a way that people express this complex world as they see it in an artistic way. it doesn't mean that it is better than genre writing they each serve their own perpous. I was shocked that day in language arts when my teacher told me some, well actually most, of the books I read wouldn't be considered literature. I was appalled, until then I was under the assumption that any work of writing was litterature, but no. Genre writing, the kind that you obsess about world building, the kind that you get writers block because you can't find a name, that is for entertainment. You know it deep down that it's for entertainment value. Like any artform. Music, painting, ... writing, there is the kind that is for entertainment (visual arts such as animation, posters etc; music, the kind we put on our iPods and listen over and over again, and writing, the books that develop gigantic fandoms, cough cough harry potter, and so on.) Literature is like any other art form in which the artist merely wants to make a statement. You will find this in any form of art you aspire to. If you want to be considered by studiers of literature, than write literature. Find something you can think through and write down. NaNo is probably not a very literary place because of the huge fantasy sci-fi culture here and also the ammount of thinking that takes to actually write a book that can be studied for centuries. So just say this when you feel inadiquate when your work isn't "literature", say, "I wrote a novel in 30 days, how long did it take you?" Wait till they answer then leave. LOL

"I talk best with my finger tips"

Literary Fantasy...I like the sound of that, personally.

My English teachers try to train students into thinking that literary writing is "better". But it depends on perspective. If it's popularity you want, genre is better. If you want to people who think genre is beneath them, then write literary. It's your priority. The only thing I have against genre is BAD genre. Or just bad writing in general. There's bad literary fiction. Oh, is there bad literary fiction.

But because I've been partially "trained" (in fact, I never wrote literary until junior year of college) literary elements sneak in to my fantasy. And I've been struggling to figure out what exactly I write. It's not magical realism because that is more of social commentary/comments on humanity in the undercurrent of the story with fantastical, unexplained events as part of the storyline. Not quite what I do. But cross-genre stuff works. I've seen romantic fantasies (and fantastical romances) the latter classified as romance, the former as fantasy. But people want to lump it into just one because, hey, that's how things are categorized in bookstores and in the publishing world. But making subgenres gives a more accurate depiction of what a writer writes.

I don't see how literary fiction and fantasy can mix really well due to one thing -- metaphors. Fantasy readers, until limits of what can take place in the story are clearly defined, might take everything literally.

And I think fantasy writers write more popular fiction which people read for fun. I personally despise literary snobbery, the attitude that literary writers are the only ones writing serious works and everything else is trite, that understanding of the story must somehow be earned. That's the main reason I chose to major in history, not English.

That doesn't mean you can't have fine language in fantasy or well-developed characters or inner struggles or whatever. Fantasy is so broad, perhaps more than any other genre. And it can be liberally mixed with everything else. I've read fantasy murder mysteries, fantasy romances, fantasy comedy, fantasy adventure, historical fantasy, and so on and so on.

"Be nice to the imaginary people. Don't kill too many." -- e-mail from my youngest sister, June 23, 2008

First, having metaphors does not equal being literary. Hemingway wrote literary fiction, and his language is about as plain as they come. Paolini writes strict (and terrible) genre fiction, and he uses metaphors like they're going out of style.

Second, with that said, literary fiction and fantasy can mix, although they don't often. In fact, off the top of my head, I can think of only one author that really truly writes Literary Fantasy and Lit. Sci-Fi, and that's Gene Wolfe. He's a brilliant, brilliant, brilliant author. Brilliant. He does things with language so complex I can barely figure out how he does them, much less dream of replicating them in my own work. And, in the hands of a master, like Mr. Wolfe, they mix really, really well. If all fantasy literature was even one-tenth as good as the work of Mr. Wolfe, the world would be a better place for it.

And third, I have to come to the defence of the literary snobs. Because I am one, as so many of my friends like to point out. We are so easily and often despised for the hard line many of our ranks draw against lesser works (most often genre fiction), and I can see where the other side is coming from, but, from my perspective at least, the "snobbery" comes from an intense and overwhelming love of literature. I love it so much so that reading bad fiction physically disgusts me (bad literature slightly less so, because at least then I can respect the motives if not the finished work, and yes I am arguing here for divergent definitions of "fiction" and "literature", although I wish I had a different word to use instead of fiction, because fiction should really be a blanket term to simply separate fiction from non-fiction, while I want literature and whatever other word I can find to separate works based on motivation/merit), and there is so much bad fiction in genre, and so, comparatively, few works of literature in the genres that it's hard not to look down on the genres as a whole as being "lesser works" when compared to literary fiction. I know it sounds bad, but there it is. I openly and admittedly look down upon entertainment as the primary motivation for writing something. This, I'm quite certain, is what makes me a snob. But when I know what literature can be, what I have, in fact, seen it be, anything that falls short, that doesn't even try, just... it's not worth my time, my effort, a moment's thought. It's similar to why I hate, for example, the film V for Vendetta. Not because it was in and of itself a bad film, but because it could have been so much more, and it wasn't, it didn't even try, it took the easy way out, and because it took the easy way out, it deserves my scorn.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I kill where I please because it is all mine."
------------------------------------------Ted Hughes

The problem with the idea that people set out and can write literary fiction is that it makes literary fiction a genre, rather than a state of being.

Hemingway I do not think set out to write literary fiction. He did not sit down and say to himself, "Hmm.. I think I'll write something literary today." Rather, he wrote in reaction to his times. The idea that one can sit down and write literature is like the idea that you will invent a new cake in a vacuum and everyone will like it.

I won't even begin with how I abhor the phrase I've seen in my literature classes, "How does this relate to you today?" Or the phrase that makes me shutter, "What is the symbolism in this?"

I will bet that the majority of the authors on the "literature" designation didn't sit down and say, "I will write literature". Shakespeare probably wasn't worried about how long his plays would last, but more likely when was he going to get the next paycheck.

So then, if literature is merely a designation of what works have lasted through time, isn't setting out to write something that will last through time an oxymoron (more moronic than oxy I think it's rather starving of oxygen here.). In fact, the people who set out to write literary often end up with crap (I point my finger squarely at my English teachers to date).

If you think you can write literature by setting out to do so, then I really, really do question what your definition of literature is. Because the reality is that most "literature" came from genre fiction. So for those of the literature community that are snobs, they have to face the reality. Literature is not created by the author, it's created by the critics. And the critics really are snobs. Because the critics read, they don't create. See art, the impressionists for this one.

If Literature is filtered fiction, it does not mean that it's not fiction nor better fiction. It's just fiction that a bunch of READERS not the writers designated over time. And thus the idea that one can create literature is often a stupid and moot point. Plus the arguments that the English teachers make often make me laugh in either surprise or disgust.

My exact problem with Literature with a capital L is that people in that academic circle often see it from the reader's POV, and don't often contextualize where the author was coming from in the author's own words. They don't discuss things like what the author had to say about their own work, nor how a cigar is sometimes just a cigar. Warping things out of context is a horrible way to understand a book. And then looking down on genre fiction where they got most of the titles? Wow... that's a really poor understanding of how books were and now are marketed.

Can a literature major tell me what Gutenberg really invented? It was not the press, it was not adjustable type. How did this influence the writing of books as we see them today? Where do margins come from? What was the original typography? How does this effect marketing of books today? How were books sold and marketed back then? And how does this influence the writing of the books and the core of the story as we see it? How do plays effect how we perceive story in books? What marked the major changes in print and the rules for getting them printed? Why do chapters exist in books? How were chapters defined originally and how have they changed and for what reasons? When and where do genres come from?

Those above things might seem minor, but that's a real study of fiction. It's not how to break down a character into an archetype. It's how did the context of books, bookmaking, printing, the times of the author, the experiences of the author and general historical events shape and influence the book before you? Art History does that. Literature, I'm waiting for to do that. (Note here, too that art history is a viewer's POV, but they aren't as half pretentious to believe they can create a masterpiece that will last through time and be considered the cream of the crop).

Genre writers do not set out to write bad stories. But the people who often set out to be literary writers often do suck because they often don't see what's the most important thing. That's writing a damned good story. 1984, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter (which was declared literature), all came from genre fiction. Actually I'll bet that 99% of the "literature" list comes from genre fiction. The other 1% is made by a bunch of people who set out to write literature, but will lose the designation in the next 100 years. And I will bet the majority of the authors did not set out to write something like that.

Literature is a designation made by a bunch of people who call themselves experts who are viewing it from a reader's POV who are saying their tastes are superior to everyone else's. I don't buy it. I buy stories I feel that are good for the stories they tell. If that's considered "genre" because it hasn't made it into literature yet and past the people who criticize fiction, or "literature" because it had some sort of party, I really don't care. I want to read and write really good fiction no matter which genre or designation a bunch of editors from the turn of the last century made it out to be. (And I can support the fact that genre designation came with the industrialization... literature grad students should be aware of these things too... art history students are.)

Telling someone you're a writer is like telling them you're an obsessive compulsive bipolar schizophrenic that goes to AA meetings once a week.

I really like that name, Literary Fantasy.

Personally, I would define as Literary Fantasy books which use fantasy situations as a metaphor for real life situations. Say, a book showing the downsides of relying on magic as a metaphor for people relying too much on technology. It'd be Literary Fantasy rather than "just" Lit Fic because the fantasy elements aren't only symbolism, they're an integral part of the story, too. Or, since Lit Fic often is more character- than plot-driven, the fantasy elements are important to the personality, conflicts and backstory of the characters.

Just like the little blurb of the Lit Fic forum says, Lit Fantasy in my mind "grapples with complex personal and societal issues", but uses a fantasy world for this endeavour.

I think many of the best Lit Fantasy books would be those who weren't written by people who meant to do some Lit Fantasy, but simply by people who were really talented and smart authors, who just happened to write fantasy.

I believe that fantasy and science-fiction are genres well-suited for Lit Fic. They give us the unique opportunity of making the readers look a situation from a completely different view point than their own in real life, free from preconceived judgements and mindsets.

I found this in the Lit Fic forum and I really like that quote.

NaNo04: Die Krone von Aarias - Fantasy - Won
NaNo05: Sincerely Yours - Science-Fiction - Won
NaNo06: Grimoire - Futuristic Fantasy - Won
NaNo07: Im grauen Licht - Romantic Fantasy

"The problem with the idea that people set out and can write literary fiction is that it makes literary fiction a genre, rather than a state of being."

...You are seriously over analysing this. "Literary fiction" refers to a specific kind of writing. It may not be as cohesive as a genre in terms of rules and regulations, but one can easily spot literary fiction. Literary fiction is not, in any way, a "state of being". You're putting some kind of spiritual emphasis on something which is just a type of fiction. I mean, I'll argue to the death about Literature with a capital "L" and its merits, but literary fiction is a genre.

"Those above things might seem minor, but that's a real study of fiction. It's not how to break down a character into an archetype. It's how did the context of books, bookmaking, printing, the times of the author, the experiences of the author and general historical events shape and influence the book before you? Art History does that."

Not to be rude, but that's some bullshit, right there. You're completely ignoring quite a bit of literary criticism. Completely ignoring it. Some critics do consider what you brought up. Some don't. It depends on what kind of critic you're reading. A Deconstructionist and a New Historicist will give you completely different readings of the same book. A Biographical critic, and a Reader Response critic will give you completely different readings of the same book.

"Genre writers do not set out to write bad stories. But the people who often set out to be literary writers often do suck because they often don't see what's the most important thing. That's writing a damned good story."

The most important thing to you, of course. I think Virginia Woolf might have some kind of argument with you there.

"Literature is a designation made by a bunch of people who call themselves experts who are viewing it from a reader's POV who are saying their tastes are superior to everyone else's."

Aren't you really doing the same thing, here? You're just telling us that we should listen to you, instead of them. And, I think it's generally the degrees in Literature which define them as "experts", although I'm sure there are those out there who claim to be experts.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"I kill where I please because it is all mine."
------------------------------------------Ted Hughes

I honestly don’t understand what is meant by “literary fiction”. I can recognize a poorly written story, but I’m capable of enjoying them if the plot is engaging enough. Stories like that are like candy – they aren’t good for you, but they’re nice anyway. I can also recognize a well-written story and, again, if the plot or characters are engaging, I’ll enjoy reading them. Those stories are like healthy foods – they make you think, but they don’t have to be a chore to read (although some are). Are those “nutritious” stories literary fiction?

I really wonder what people like Hemingway, who is said to have written literary fiction, were thinking when they wrote. Did they say, “I’m going to dazzle them with my brilliance.” or were they just doing the same thing as the people here: trying to write a good story.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Hemingway. There was symbolism, but not so much that everything was a symbol of something else. The Hemingway and Faulkner chapters in my lit classes were two of my favorites, in fact, while I was in school.

If literary fiction "grapples with complex personal and societal issues", then that’s what I try to write. My favorites out of the stories I’ve written did just that. They were character-driven stories that explored personal issues and societal problems. However, what I always set out to do – first and foremost – is write a good story. Does this mean I’m writing literary fantasy? I have no idea and I honestly don’t care. Like I said, I’m just trying to write a good story.

___
NaNo 2006: Steel Bars - 59,233 words
Screnzy 2007: The Enchanted Forest - won
NaNo 2007: Turning Beetles into Buttons - 51,949 words
Screnzy 2008: Simple Gifts - 43 pages total & Butterfly - 9 episodes

You know, I cringe when I hear the world "literary." I really do.

Why?

Because every arrogant, conceited, pandering, unimaginative person I knew in any of my english/creative writing classes (including my professors)/ workshops automatically decided what was, in fact, literary. And do you know what they idolized in fiction?

Ahem:

--No figurative language of any kind: forget any sort of metaphor, any poetic licensing, and don't, for a single minute, even DARE to use words which are associated with human attributes for your random verbs (I.E. Fireplaces don't harbor fires/trees do not weep their sap, etc.)

--The plot was as unimaginative, uncreative, un-ANYTHING as possible. If you had not ever personally experienced anything of which you were writing, do not waste their precious time in asking them to read it. The best fiction stories, according to my college/workshops, are nonfiction. Sure, personal reflection does enhance writing, but, unless you have actually driven
that red Ford Escort through Rural West Virginia, don't even bother describing it. The readers *will* know.

--Bodily Functions. This is what I do not understand. Any writing workshop/class I have ever taken wanted their writers to graphically detail every bodily passage which graced their characters. Made it real, they said. Made it gritty. Made the audience connect with the characters because, hey, they go to the bathroom too! Unless you specifically detailed your character's morning routine--including using the facilities, brushing teeth, and showering--the character didn't feel real.

Granted, I could continue listing their keys to literary success for the next twenty minutes (and, believe me, I have the ammunition), but my point has been made. I would no sooner write their version of literary fiction than I would gouge out my own eye with my tongue. (Such levels of dedication would be required to adequately display my contempt for such endeavors.) I am grateful my twenty thousand dollars in student loans have lead to me to these conclusions.

"In broad terms, literary fiction focuses more on style, psychological depth, and character, whereas mainstream commercial fiction (the page-turner) focuses more on narrative and plot" --Wikipedia.

There is your generic definition. I want someone to explain to me how a fantasy novel could not incorporate "style" and "psychological depth." Seriously. I understand there are poorly written fantasy novels out there, but, hell, I would argue that, while there is certainly a distinctive style, I see little to no psychological depth to anything Jane Austen ever wrote. To me, simply because someone decides to throw a dragon into a story does not automatically make his/her story any less poetic or *classical* than any literary English novels. (Oh, another story about a downtrodden orphan again? How trite. I hate reading anything about orphans, they're so indicative of 19th Century prose!)

The key to deciphering what is literary and what is another style? Reading the damn book for yourself without flipping through the pages to find the one item which surely represents what you have come to expect from that style.

Of course, most "literary" scholars and students would sooner gouge out their eye with their tongue (just, try to picture it for a moment) than give a fantasy novel any consideration due to a use of a fantastic element--be it the supernatural, a customized race, or the creation of mythological beings. I suppose my rambling has brought me to this:

The reason I despise the "literary" is because I have my preconceived notions about what can be found within a particular story. I want excitement...not excrement. Most literary students despise fantasy and genre because they believe they will only find dragons, sorcerers, and some sort of major war which threatens the very existence of all living things unless the unlikely hero--who never knew he had the power--becomes the savior of all through the aid of some sort of magical weaponry and the advice/friendship of some friend--be it human, elf, dwarf, dragon, vampire, or six foot long, purple, cursed talking gula monster. I am just as guilty as my classmates/workshop-mates/professors.

My solution would be just writing a good story--one with character growth, a decent plot, descriptive settings--you know, a STORY. Forgot the whole "genre" issue, forget limiting your imagination to please the critics of the world (of which, apparently, everyone is), and stop assuming the work is not worthy of literary classification just because the lone elf might pass by one of your chapters.

Sorry this has been so long, this is 4 years (and $20,000) of pent up anger and hostility regarding an issue I'm rather passionate about.

Epic first post, Dierdre. I love it!

________________________________________________
"A bibliophile of little means is likely to suffer often. Books don't slip from his hands but fly past him through the air, high as birds, high as prices." --Pablo Neruda

In light of Deidre, I really have to let this rant loose...

I took a Creative writing class in High School. This teacher was told to teach Fairytales as part of a literature class. he in fact, taught C.S. Lewis, Mark Twain and Tolkien. And Mark Twain wasn't that Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer stuff, but the darker stuff people don't see.

For the class I would write fantasy pieces. I wrote fantasy because it is damned hard to write fantasy, especially in a short fiction piece. Keep in mind this person extolled on how Tolkien was literature.

He said that since I only wrote fantasy that I couldn't get a creative writing award. I was pissed.

He wrote about a friggin' Christmas tree and the heavy moralism and the symbol of the meaning of Christmas. That's all he wrote as an example for the class, but he was lecturing me on how fantasy wasn't legit, and what's more writing only fantasy was not legit (for the record I wrote Science Fiction, but I guess that was the same thing).

He was a twit too since he couldn't pronounce "archetype" and refused to change his pronunciation after I looked it up in the dictionary for him. But let's get past that.

Since he accused me of writing stuff that was only fantasy, i went up to him and the next day slapped down a two inch thick stack of paper that showed I wrote other things besides fantasy too. I was the only one that wrote poems on the blank part of the black board. I got the award.

So apparently Tolkien isn't fantasy. That's why he's in the Fantasy shelves at the bookstore. Once he's Literature, then it's not genre fiction anymore. That's a load of crap right there. 1984 isn't Science Fiction anymore because it's taught in schools? Jane Austen is't chic lit anymore because it's old? Where did this crappy idea come from? Hemingway didn't write saying he'd make the greatest masterpeice ever. Will English teachers talk about this stuff. Of course not, because it would undermine the idea that there is *special* fiction out there that was "meant" to be literature.

And I don't get that pressing question my teachers felt like they had to ask in literature classes that other creative history classes have no desire to ask. "What does this book mean to you in your life today?" This has to be one of the most stupid questions on the planet and a poor study of how art is made! Art is filled with context after the industrial age, in fact, the idea of contextualized for art came at around the 1920's. How come Literature classes haven't caught up to this idea yet? Why is it that music history, art history and every other study on the planet has their brain wrapped around the fact that something from the 17th century won't have the same context as contemporary times? You lose a ton of information when you do that to a book.

Art History teachers know about pigments available to the artists, the type of canvas, the background of the artist but literature teachers I've had don't really give a damn what the artist thought. The whole point with Literature is to divorce it from any context or sense of meaning and then try to make meaning for it. Seriously, this field needs a serious spanking. Why do Art Historians worry about the sponsors available to the artist and the literature professors don't give a damn about how marketing works?

Messed up field, Literature is. I still stick by my assessment. It's some guys who are deciding what the "good" stuff is without any reasoning to do so.

Telling someone you're a writer is like telling them you're an obsessive compulsive bipolar schizophrenic that goes to AA meetings once a week.

I'm sorry you had such a duff-head as an English teacher, Kimberly.
The good thing, it sounds like, is that you were still able to think for yourself.

I have long thought that Literature courses should only be taught by people who love books.

I bet you could teach a kicking good class yourself!

I find the thing about what I call Literary Fantasy is that it stirs the imagination in such a way as to inspire the reader. It makes the world a bigger place, more full of possibility. This includes characters we can care about, relate to, grow to understand, enjoy, root for, boo, etc. -which is always a very good adventure.

Fairytales give us allies and enemies, obstacles to overcome, and riches to be had.

I love hanging out with a very good story in the Fantasy/Sci Fi section!

I can't imagine anything stupider. I knew I got lucky in my creative writing class when I came in on the first day and the instructor was reading Poul Anderson. I wrote nothing but fantasy, as did another student; another guy wrote science fiction and this one girl wrote really good chick lit. She had a unique voice and a great ear for dialogue. I was surprised that we both ended up getting the creative writing award for that semester. But if I didn't have an instructor who appreciated fantasy, I would not have even been considered.

I don't know about you, but I got absolutely no literary theory in high school. But even in college, it seems like when given a choice, students will gravitate toward reader response essays because that requires the least research. Sure, there is more sophisticated reader response criticism, with its ideal readers and interpretive communities and such, but for the most part students stick with relating a piece of literature to their own lives. In one 200-level class I took most students responded to the question, "why do you read?" with some iteration of, "so I can read stories that relate to me." Maybe that is just the result of attending a fairly conservative university.

Could you imagine what would happen if a high school English teacher unleashed New Historicism on a class, and forced them to actually *think* about history, focused through the lens of, say, Charles Dickens? Or, heaven forbid, a teacher teaching students about feminist, African-American, queer, postcolonial, or Marxist criticism? When you take away all that, you're left with New Criticism ("everything is in the text, no context needed") and a simplified reader response ("what does this mean to you?"). I'm not saying that those are not valid ways to explore a text; I just think they're best used along with critical theories that engages with the material being of a work of art. Books just don't fall out of the sky.

________________________________________________
"A bibliophile of little means is likely to suffer often. Books don't slip from his hands but fly past him through the air, high as birds, high as prices." --Pablo Neruda

________________________________________________
"A bibliophile of little means is likely to suffer often. Books don't slip from his hands but fly past him through the air, high as birds, high as prices." --Pablo Neruda

Exactly! Knowing little things like Charles Dickens was paid by the word, how Charles Dickens thought of his own work, how chapters were serialized at the time, how Mark Twain hated typing his own manuscripts and the typist and he would often comment back and forth, how manuscript submissions worked, how copyright degradation effected Mark Twain into writing Huck Finn, and the times of those authors, such as how did the Civil War effect Mark Twain? He did a lot of on-stage work... He was a river boat captain, what influence did that have on the books besides geography knowledge and actually reading things in class about the author and the times that they were in, even little newspaper clippings would have made an awesome class! Editors also had a great influence on writers.

All of those things I listed, I learned in post. And I got a deeper appreciation for the book even if I didn't like the book. I could understand what the author went through. Everything that built up to making the book.

I think this is why literature professors love Shakespeare! It's because the man has about zero traceable history! What better way to teach than to teach about a man you do not know so that those errant students won't actually think about how back then the important thing was to conform to the crown's POV of the world. If Shakespeare was so great, what did his contemporaries make at the same time? What makes him a great WRITER not a great POET? No one has answered that question for me yet. It's a valid question to ask. What makes him a great writer? What makes him so outstanding for his times that we should still recognize him? What is the difference between him being a great writer and a great poet? If he's sooo fabulous and soo great of a playwright, is he so because others tell people so and you can't question Shakespeare's works? But God forbid one should question the moral ground of literature and ask if Shakespeare is a great writer! Because we should not question the almighty status of literature with a capital L. Because some critic out there decided it was great and you do not question the almighty critic on their opinions! Do not think about literature. Absorb it.

I love books and reading which is why I write, but I hate literature classes for their exact pretentiousness.

I really had no appreciation for Tolkien until I learned that he worked with C.S. Lewis and what influences they had on each other. The 1 hour biography on Tolkien on TV did more for my understanding of literature than any of my classes did about literature. I hope someone who becomes a professor in this field and is reading this, takes this into account when they teach. Context gives appreciation even when you don't like the book in front of you. Answer the question up front, why do critics think this book is all that and a bag of chips? Why is this author so great? What else was there at the time that wasn't considered as good and was compared to the book before you? Do the students have to read the other books? No. But knowing that background information might actually make them pay attention and not make up crappy answers off the top of their heads. And even if it doesn't it would really help them to focus on why others appreciate it, so they don't have to flounder when someone asks, "Why is Shakespeare great?"

BTW, Shakespeare wrote Fantasy. It's called a Midsummer Night's Dream. It's called MacBeth (which can also be called Horror). The Tempest. But again, since he's literature with a capital L, it doesn't count as genre fiction. Nope. He's this other thing. Because it's sooo old and it's not uhh... from present times, then it's not fantasy. Oh please. He thought witches really existed, like we believe that Michael Jackson didn't have plastic surgery. Yet those same professors snub Fantasy and genre fiction as below them.
________________________________________________
Telling someone you're a writer is like telling them you're an obsessive compulsive bipolar schizophrenic that goes to AA meetings once a week.

Telling someone you're a writer is like telling them you're an obsessive compulsive bipolar schizophrenic that goes to AA meetings once a week.

Dronology, literary theory...there was an interesting topic in my "introduction" to English Studies class that all the English majors inevitably took as their last credit senior year.

Here is my question. I understand there are a variety of ways to study literature, however, I was a little perplexed at my classmates using certain theories on certain novels, for instance, psychoanalytic critiques of any literature is beyond me...the psychoanalytic perspective has been discredited in psychology for years, why anyone would want to continue defining literature through this scope is inane. (Exceptions for literature written specifically from Freud's time period when the theory was yet en vogue.)

Marxist theory has also perplexed me, especially as many in my classes were determined to use it to critique early 19th century works, like "Sense and Sensibility." I understand certain theories of Marxism can be applied to "Sense and Sensibility," (class stations, materialism, etc), but it seems bizarre to critique the book under the guise of an idea which hadn't actually been fully developed at that time...in fact, it's namesake had yet to be born at the time Austen's publication.

I'm actually a fan of New Criticism, Deconstruction, and Structuralism, simply because it forces the reader to consider the text and only the texts. As readers, we don't know the author's true motivation for writing a work. We don't know if Jane Austen really was a feminist, we don't know if Terry Goodkind seems to write only about rape because he can't make another evil trait for his villains, Good Lord, there's still speculation Shakespeare didn't actually write all of those plays! Searching the novel itself for its own interpretation seems more...valid. (Historical perspectives work well here, so long as critic is researching the time period for the story, not the time period for the author's influences.)

Don't get me wrong. There was nothing better in my classes than a good discussion of a novel utilizing the masses of theories provided by "literary" scholars, however, it mostly served as an excuse for my professors to hop onto their soapbox and force their own views of the novels onto unwitting students. It, once again, provided them with enough ammunition to discredit the "genred" fiction I liked to write/read.

Of course, as Kimberly mentioned, until the fantastic type novel suddenly become chic to read. Lord of the Rings, 1984, prime examples. But, you see, according to literary scholars, the work itself transcends restrictive labeling--Tolkien understood literature, and, more importantly, allegory! His work wasn't mere fantasy, it can be read as class struggle, governmental oppression, industrialism vs. environmentalism, etc, etc, etc. *rolls eyes*

*Kimberly*

I completely understand your experience in creative writing classes. It seems we all have had our run ins with those professors who lie to themselves/the class when they label their classes as "creative."

Bah, I'm just starting a new comment, this is going to get crazy long as well.

A continuation from the last post...apparently, I am not a woman of few words.

My professor taught introduction to creative writing--supposedly lessons in fiction, drama, and poetry. What did we get? Nonfiction. He frowned on genre, but, to his credit, finally added the "no genre" tag to the syllabus (actually, all his syllabuses...syllabi?) the next semester. This wasn't merely a restriction on fantasy—this was him telling the class, "write *only* about what you know." The stories involving teenage mothers, runaways, terrorists attacking a wal-mart (which was actually quite entertaining), one night stands, depression era tales of woe, and, of course, light fantasy stories, were all systematically rejected. Sure, he graded them...mercilessly. It only took a few of us grade appealing before he added a second clause to the syllabus--grading based only on completeness and class participation, not content.

His preferred stories? A girl writing about a death in her family, a girl writing about sitting in a farm field at night, a girl writing about her twin's car accident...All true snippets. I'll allow nonfiction in a creative writing class...I'd rather it be written in the actual Nonfiction class.

The icing on the cake... I wrote a semi-scifi piece regarding an enforced quarantine on campus after reports of adult-strain chickenpox (Not shingles, I didn't want it to actually be dangerous.) The story was nothing more than four roommates trapped in their dorm room: repeatedly watching Moulin Rogue, downing the last of their ramon noodles, painting toenails and eventually walls, and, basically, being exceptionally bored and near hysterical college girls. Eventually, the nursing department--deciding chickenpox immunities could only be secured once everyone actually got the chickenpox--infiltrated the dorms, drinking from their friend's cans of pop and breathing in everyone's general direction.

Those in the class who actually liked fantasy/scifi thought it was fairly humorous. The professor didn't finish the story, not surprising. The main complaint from kids in the class..."If you got this published, all the cultural references would be lost in fifty years. It's irresponsible literature."

While my main goal had been to entertain my class, not publish some weird-ass little story, I was rather offended. Who cares what happens to my story in fifty years? Who is so compulsive about their writing they would sacrifice humor and cultural references and intricate details of college life to ensure the appreciation of a story (hastily written the night before it was due) two generations from now?

In my opinion, literature isn't something that can be planned, it's something that just Becomes within a story.

Kimberley, would now be the time to mention that I learned all those things in my high school lit classes? I also had one teacher who did a presentation on Shakespeare before we studied his work – she told us what information was known and about different theories (like that he didn’t write everything attributed to him or who the lady a great deal of his sonnet were to may have been). I was a science major in college, so I took what lit classes I need for general education requirements, plus one creative writing workshop for fun. I never learned all these different literary theories, but my high school teachers actually did try to put literature into a historic perspective for me.

Dierdre, I think your classmates were wrong about your story. Even if people don’t understand Moulin Rogue 50 years from now, they’ll probably understand the idea of watching a movie. Things won’t have change that much. (God, I’ll be 80 then, I hope people will still watch movies.) When I did Guys and Dolls in high school, I didn't really know who Gregory Peck was - I only knew him as some old actor - but I could tell the character was supposed to react to him the way some girls react to Orlando Bloom now. Even if cultural references fade or get forgotten in time, a reader can still sometimes understand the feelings behind the reference.

___
NaNo 2006: Steel Bars - 59,233 words
Screnzy 2007: The Enchanted Forest - won
NaNo 2007: Turning Beetles into Buttons - 51,949 words
Screnzy 2008: Simple Gifts - 43 pages total & Butterfly - 9 episodes

By the same token, you could stay that one couldn't do New Criticism, for example, on a poem written before the 1920s, which I would not agree with. As for Marxism, it contains a theory of history--historical materialism. "The history of all hitherto existing societies is a history of class struggle," whether plebeian and patrician or proletariat and bourgeoisie. The early 19th century, you had a rising bourgeoisie challenging the old, declining aristocracy. In Pride and Prejudice, for example, Elizabeth is almost directly quoting Mary Wollstonecraft when she tells Collins she wants to be regarded as a "rational creature". Her marriage to Darcy (omg spoiler!!!) is an example of the union between the (petit) bourgeoisie and the aristocracy, something that was happening all over England at the time. Marxist criticism gives you this historical, class analysis.

Any text can be read this way, the more popular, the better. We're still not searching for that elusive "authorial intent," and there are times when an author's stated intentions/beliefs are known, but her/his work contradicts that intent, such as the old canard, "How could Tolkien, who survived WWI, glorify war in his novel?" Well, is that really what he's doing? You see the same thing in HP Lovecraft. I remember hearing something he wrote in which he described a slithering, oily, oozing mass of eyeballs. It wasn't a passage from his fiction, but a description of a working-class New York neighborhood. One could say that Lovecraft's cosmic horrors "stood for" his feelings about working-class people, but could you really know that? Whether he intended it that way or not, you can see how he described things he thought were disgusting in similar ways...I think I'm just starting to ramble, now. The point is that you couldn't figure that stuff out by looking at "the text itself," but the problem with this approach is that, like the mentats of "Dune," you need a lot of information to reach a conclusion, and it's very easy to reject or judge a text because it doesn't have the "right" politics.

[Sorry, I had to go back and edit parts of this to make it more readable]
________________________________________________
"A bibliophile of little means is likely to suffer often. Books don't slip from his hands but fly past him through the air, high as birds, high as prices." --Pablo Neruda

________________________________________________
"A bibliophile of little means is likely to suffer often. Books don't slip from his hands but fly past him through the air, high as birds, high as prices." --Pablo Neruda

I did once ask what's so great about Shakespeare and why this book was literature and I was snubbed. When I asked the teacher in another class if we could ask the author she said we didn't have time and she didn't encourage it. (He is still alive BTW).

You say we can't know the author's intentions. That's true to some extent, but in some cases, the author also wrote extensively about what they meant by a particular story. C.S. Lewis had a stack of writing about his own books and his views on books and theory. I asked the teacher explicitly if we could read it in class. He basically said it wasn't important and the texts were too long. But I could find them in the school library. I asked which ones were best... and he didn't answer the question. (Though apparently he read a few himself).

I'm for being able to contextualize books in the way of figuring the surrounding historical times at the time that the book was being written. Maybe getting something from the writer themselves. And also having a large dose of salt added to think that maybe this symbolism isn't what is. That maybe what makes literature great is not the agelessness, but the idea that it can still entertain and be appreciated with the context that it was originally written in.

It's far better to ask if Mark Twain was racist if you are given the context of the times and asked to adhere to the context of the times. For his times, I think he was probably a lot more forward thinking, even though he seems to admit in some face that he wasn't 100% sure about the issue. The teachers were asking about an opinion of a man when they were studying Huck Finn and not looking at the full scope. A lot of my teachers asked me to make judgments about the authors when we were reading their texts, but not about their lives or the times they came from. (I know how much error this is, since I often play with storylines that play against my beliefs)

Let's be realistic, Romeo and Juliet doesn't make much sense if one doesn't know what feuds are nor what feudalism is. Why is that so important and why does it play into the story? Why did Romeo and Juliet have communication problems? And is it really a great epic love story? I asked my parents this when we saw Romeo and Juliet and they gave half a better answer than any of my English teachers. I can argue now that I'm older that Romeo and Juliet had lust, not love for each other.

Knowing about the 42-line Bible and the background of publishing has helped me greatly in writing books.

I do agree that the teacher should try their best to present opposing views of a book rather than just their own view. My music theory and art history classes did this. I'm still waiting for a literature class to give a book and critic's views on it.

(The last critic view I have seen was laughable because the author didn't cite any other books besides his own on how Mark Twain was racist for using the N word. Thus should be banned. But didn't argue with historical context either. Badly argued all over. I would advocate talking about the origins of the word and why it is considered so bad. How it has roots tied to slavery and what really went into slavery. If the kids aren't old enough to understand these things and see the gravity of it, then you shouldn't be teaching such a book. The film The N word is really good for this.)

Dierdre-- have you read any of your literature professor's stories? I swear they are the worst of the lot. They are so awful! I was subjected to a few. The first two I listened through the next few I tuned out.

The first one was about how a town made apple cider. (I'm not kidding. You can see the moral 10 miles away already). And how people got lazy and started to put in bad apples. >.<;; So the apple cider didn't taste so good that year. That is why (as he was talking to the student body) everyone for that year should put in "good" apples. It would have stayed a cheesy speech, but the other English teacher pushed it through to the "Literary" journal. --;; Great grammar, horrid story.

The other one was on Christmas and how we shouldn't take things for granted. (By the teacher who pushed through the story through the literary journal). There wasn't enough that year (like an O Henry story, but ten times worse), and what did you know, the boy wanted a bike. Because he got the bike it made him grateful. The moral is that you take things for granted unless you know what it's like to have nothing. (Literature teachers I've run into so far love these cheesy morals that use "symbolism" "Metaphor" poetic phrasing, etc.) I contradicted him and said, people who have had nothing often take things for granted too. They just have to forget what it's like to have nothing. (I was outspoken without tact in those days). He got a bit ticked... but it's true. It was a legitimate critique of the moral.

Most Literature Teacher's stories I've run into so far where they didn't start out wanting to be a writer have stank. And stank hard. >.<;; It gives me a deep sense of emptiness listening to the stories like the ones above. It makes me want to scream I can write better. Of course the teachers themselves think what they've written is literature.

Have you had the pain of one of these stories?
---
Telling someone you're a writer is like telling them you're an obsessive compulsive bipolar schizophrenic that goes to AA meetings once a week.

Telling someone you're a writer is like telling them you're an obsessive compulsive bipolar schizophrenic that goes to AA meetings once a week.

Haha, creative writing major here. My school is kind of weird when it comes to what is considered literary or not. First of all, the program likes to think of themselves as "selective." The first time I applied I wrote what I hoped was an attempt at "Literary Sci-fi." I didn't get in, obviously. The second time I cheated the system and applied with poetry, which is a lot easier to BS than fiction, and I got in. But the first time, when I didn't get in, one of the guys who did got in wrote some emo story about a little girl who dies in a car crash. It was horribly written, but it was *sad*, so it must be awesome right? That being said, once I was admitted to the program, I continued to write sci-fi, and was praised for it. I think it depends entirely on who you get as a teacher.

The biggest problem I have with Literature (and yes, I have taken Literary Theory, Literary Analysis, etc), is the preconceived notion that "mildly uplifting = bad, bad, BAD." Only horribly depressing things get to be literature. And I just can't write that way, nor do I enjoy reading that kind of thing. I like authors like Dickens, who are as dark as hell, but manage to make the story positive in the end.

And it's been said before, but to all the "Genre Fiction can't be Literary!" people, I give you:

Frankenstein. Fahrenheit 451. 1984. Brave New World. And I'd list more but I am going to be late for physics.

Later!

Oh, oh, oh. I have the most delicious story about this.

So, my professor did not like genre. Not. One. Bit. He made this excessively clear through grading and his general grunts throughout the classes. Not only did he despise anything beyond nonfiction, he also harbored some weird verb fetish. I agreed with him on this point--verbs are the most descriptive part of a sentence. Adjectives are alright in moderation, adverbs need specific placement, but verbs are the key to creating suspense, description, etc. Unfortunately, when I used these verbs in story form..I'll even grab a specific section of a short story I wrote...he nearly failed me, refusing to even finish the story. I'll bold what he found offensive, let's see if I can manage HTML.

ahem: This is from one of my more fun stories--a noir style choose your own adventure...you can imagine how that went over.

The watch landed somewhere beyond the table. I peeled my skin from the sweat-dampened sheets and stood. The pain in my arm dulled to an ignorable grumble. I still grunted in pulling on my shirt. My jeans lay in a wrinkled mass in the corner, one pant leg escaping the fold. I shook my head to clear the swirling vision and groped my way to the bathroom. The bottle of aspirin was waiting for me on the counter, or had I not moved it since the last time regret and I had a go ?
I popped a few and chewed. Bitter. The pills and I had a lot in common. My reflection stared smugly through the smeared glass. Haven’t learned yet? It was asking. You’re forty two years old, when will you learn? I shrugged and splashed a bit of water on my face, ignoring the increasing gray at my temples. The only streaks of light against my dark. Gray should make you wiser, my reflection said , it only makes you pathetic. I needed to shave. I didn’t know any who would care. My holier-than-thou reflection made chewing the pills harder. I didn’t need atonement, I needed breakfast. I turned to leave. My reflection wouldn’t let me. You wouldn’t act so damned stupid if she were here.

When the mirror talks, it should be italicized, but whatever, you get the point. So, count them up. It simply does not make sense. Reflections can't talk. Pills can't wait. Etc, etc. That's right, boys and girls, personification is wrong, bad, terrible literature. So, though the verb is the strongest part of a sentence, we cannot use verbs applying human attributes to things non human. Let me ask...what does that leave?

So, imagine my surprise, when he hands us a copy of one of his stories. A line, "The sea black diamond sparkling silver" springs to mind. So much for powerful verbs. Let's see, in the course of his story, a bird "dropped like a fighter jet," (weird, machinery attribute there), uhoh "...current flowed up the long graceful arm of North America" (definite personification), and, I'll leave with this direct quote,

"[the hare] darted from one bush to the next with the hawk following fast and frantic, at one point dropping like lead and flipping the hare off his feet, surely doomed I thought and cringed against a red explosion and the quiet dripping retreat of the bird."

Also, logic is hard. He wrote a second story story where a hurricane struck North Carolina on Christmas Day (granted, it IS possible for tropical disturbances, but this was a category classified storm), his main character decided to surf during the hurricane, and, in the grand ending, she was swept away by a TIDAL WAVE at some point. The last bits of dialogue? Two surfer guys who watched from the pier as she rode off to the beautiful, southern sunset, "She just surfed away, man!"

Case closed? Believe me, these are not the only terribad bits to his stories. And I wonder why he said 1 out of every 25 stories will be rejected by publishers.

Sigh, all I ever wanted was for him to finish reading something I wrote.

I so agree with you on this one. There was a writer in my short story college class who ALWAYS had to use the word feces somewhere in his stories. EVERY SINGLE ONE. We all got tied of it...or at least a few of us in the class.

I mean, who seriously wants to hear about feces in a short story?

Apparently more people than I would think...he won at least one of the short story contests while I was there.

His writing was good, I'll admit, but his obsession with feces wasn't.

Enough already!

Crossing Over...

The boundaries between Heaven, Hell, and Earth are fading...and nothing will ever be the same.

NaNoWriMo 2007